All over for another 4 years. See you in London. ;)
Top Stories
- 2 - Govt under fire over staf…
- 2 - Aaron Sorkin Writing Face…
- 2 - Analog Meets Its Match in…
- 2 - All Saints star found dea…
- 2 - Heated car seats 'frying…
- 2 - Blogger arrested over Gun…
- 1 - North Sydney Markets
- 1 - Visual Studio 2008 By Chr…
- 1 - Olympic 49er State Champi…
- 1 - This is what happens when…
Just In
- 21:16pm Running A File- &…
- 19:39pm Access 31 – more f…
- 19:06pm Blogger arrested ove…
- 11:35am Heated car seats 'fr…
- 11:27am All Saints star foun…
- 11:17am Analog Meets Its Mat…
- 09:38am Aaron Sorkin Writing…
- 09:27am Govt under fire over…
- 20:43pm The terrifying cost…
- 16:47pm The 'Great Domain Gr…
Access 31 - snatching defeat from the jaws of vict
A generous 'rescue package' for the cash-challenged Access 31 was announced at the special members' meeting on the third of July and a claim that Senator Conroy's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy had come through with a new programme and timetable - the Station was going digital and all its worries were over.
Two weeks later staff numbers have plummetted from twenty-two to about ten. Volunteer numbers have dropped so that the broadcast hours are down from 6am to midnight with all-night montage, to 10.30 am to 10.30 pm, no montage.
The July meeting was held to vote on Access31 embracing voluntary liquidation - all the fault of Government, or in the words of CEO Andrew Brine: “All free-to-airs except for community television were provided access to digital spectrum and significant Government funding to make their transition... after four solid years of lobbying Government for a digital future, Access31 and the sector are no closer to digital...”
A few minor problems like falling cash flows, a demand for $107,492 (rent for the transmitter site, surely not an item of fiscal surprise) were irrelevant.
Chairman Hendy Cowan continued the theme with his opening statement: “I'm very very pleased to report that the office of Senator Conroy has now developed a policy that sets a programme and a process and a timetable for the delivery of digital television services for community television and while I don't like brinkmanship....(our action in threatening voluntary liquidation was) the catalyst ....” Pleased surprise, and in my case outright disbelief.
But more good news was to come, a 'white knight', Mr Garry Baverstock, (here) had offered a financial handout of undisclosed size with undisclosed conditions attached. The Board had accepted it, the Members now had the freedom to accept or reject it. Hendy Cowan, who runs a very tight meeting, gave members two seconds before announcing that since there was no discussion, we'd proceed to a vote.
I interrupted to ask for details of whatever it was we were voting on.
Chairman was not at liberty to say, after all the Board has accepted it, the implication being that older and wiser heads who know best have made a decision.
A Member asked how would Station management be changed so that we're not shepherded into a third liquidation crisis (the first was in 2003) The Chairman wouldn't allow discussion – surely the important thing was to get the Station up and running again. Some of us thought that perhaps the important thing was to get the Station up and running properly.
A third Member objected faintly to voting on a total unknown and we were shepherded to the vote. It was of course carried with a note made that there were four votes against accepting the offer.
Hours after the close of meeting, details of the Baverstock package which the Chairman of the Board was not at liberty to divulge to the voting Members, appeared on the Sunday Times website (here). A warm fuzzy from the ST may have helped to lessen the agony from an earlier piece about current Board member, Abdullah Magar's, little bit of trouble here.
From the 8th of July, announcements of the born-again Station flooded Access 31's airwaves (here)
I searched the news services and Senator Conroy's Press Releases, and found no confirmation of the claim. I emailed Senator Conroy's office with a link to the Access31 announcement and a transcript of Hendy Cowan's opening speech at the third of July meeting, and asked for a copy of this revolutionary new policy.
On the 14th of July a member of Senator Conroy's staff contacted me.. She expressed surprise at Hendy Cowan's claim that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has suddenly “developed a policy that sets a programme and a process and a timetable for the delivery of digital television services for community television”. She said that the policy is unchanged, that their Department will continue its current level of support and that community television will not be disadvantaged by the changeover from analogue in December, 2013.
Can Access31 be saved? At its current level of service, it's unlikely to attract sponsors or to keep the ones it's got. Timetables are unreliable and there's no notice of programme changes on the Access31 home page. It's very easy to lose an audience, and very, very, very difficult to get it back.


Comments
It was never about the spectrum. It was always about wasting more money so the board can continue to feel relevant.
You must be logged in to vote
Relevant… and well remunerated. Just how much did one director’s company receive for a simple series of interview programmes that would have cost no more than $1000 an episode at professional rates? And how much did that same company receive from Screenwest for a series that has yet to see the light of day?
How much has another company, associated with a current director and a former Chairman, received for “technical consultancy”?
How high are the “executive salaries” that even the tame Administrator criticised in his report?
And just how will the station cope if - as was stated on another blog - Mr Magar (one of the station’s biggest sponsors as well as a director) has paid in advance for three years of having his programmes transmitted? That means a major shortfall in income for the next two years.
We will find out, despite the directors having wasted thousands of dollars of public money fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure that the company wasn’t subject to FOI requests. Not much to hide there, obviously.
Anyone - such as Garry Baverstock - not associated with (and probably not even aware of) these cosy deals would be well advised to consider very carefully their involvement in this enterprise.
You must be logged in to vote
Polemic, where did you get the item about Mr Magar’s pre-payment? I had a good look at the financial statement provided to ASIC as a declaration of solvency and there was an amount of about $93,000 there as deferred revenue. Is that it?
You must be logged in to vote
Hello Di
Thanks for posting this item, by the way. They can’t be allowed to slink back into the shadows.
According to a seemingly well-informed young woman by the name of “Rasha” on this thread on PerthNow, defending Mr Magar, he’s paid in advance.
To “defer” income is to delay receiving it, not to forgo receiving it in future because you’ve been so greedy as to gobble up three year’s revenue in one year, so I doubt the figure to which you refer relates to it.
Still, all this confusion could be cleared up if Mr Cowan and Mr Brine opened the books. I wonder what’s stopping them? What’s made them so scared they ran all the way to the Supreme Court to stop Mr Inglis gaining access to documents under the FOI Act? What could a supposedly straightforward community enterprise be trying to conceal?
You must be logged in to vote
Hello Di Day,
The Australian Islamic College, under the direction of Mr Magar, paid $62,436 to the station in 2006 and $55,140 in 2007. These are classified as program fees for the telecast of Visions of Islam. The $93,000 you refer to in the insolvency declaration does not include this. For the record I believe Mr Magar has resigned from the Board. Thank you for clarifying brinkmanship. I wondered what Hendy Cowan was referring to. My dictionary has it as
” the art or practice of pursuing a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping”
That is exactly what they did in threatening Liquidation.
You must be logged in to vote
Interesting he used that term, Videoguru. In politics the most famous example of brinkmanship is probably the Cuban Missle crisis, which nearly brought about the end of the world and today is recognised as a tactic used only by the very unwise or the profoundly stupid.
In business it’s a tactic that any manager or director with even a modicum of ability knows is “pretty much a lose-lose situation for all concerned… It should be avoided at all costs“.
In fact the person most often accused of using it as a tactic nowadays is a power-mad dictator. Funny that.
You must be logged in to vote
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.